ZIMBABWE unsolicited text messages from Zanu PF asking him to vote for the party. In a case in which the applicant wanted the ZEC to be ordered to release the voters’ roll, the court ruled in favour of the Election Resource Centre, stating that the elections management body must make the voters’ roll available to anyone who pays the stipulated fee in a reasonable amount of time and in the preferred format. All these cases have the potential to shape the access to information environment in the country. Under the Constitution, the following rights are explicitly guaranteed: 61 Freedom of expression and freedom of the media (1) Every person has the right to freedom of expression, which includes— (a) freedom to seek, receive and communicate ideas and other information; (b) freedom of artistic expression and scientific research and creativity; and (c) academic freedom. (2) Every person is entitled to freedom of the media, which freedom includes protection of the confidentiality of journalists’ sources of information. (3) Broadcasting and other electronic media of communication have freedom of establishment, subject only to State licensing procedures that— (a) are necessary to regulate the airwaves and other forms of signal distribution; and (b) are independent of control by government or by political or commercial interests. (4) All State-owned media of communication must— (a) be free to determine independently the editorial content of their broadcasts or other communications; (b) be impartial; and (c) afford fair opportunity for the presentation of divergent views and dissenting opinions. (5) Freedom of expression and freedom of the media do not include— (a) incitement to violence; (b) advocacy of hatred or hate speech; (c) malicious injury to a person’s reputation or dignity; or (d) malicious or unwarranted breach of a person’s right to privacy. 62 Access to information (1) Every Zimbabwean citizen or permanent resident, including the Zimbabwean media, has the right of access to any information held by the State or by any institution or agency of government at every level, in so far as the information is required in the interests of public accountability. (2) Every person, including the Zimbabwean media, has the right of access to any information held by any person, including the State, in so far as the information is required for the exercise or protection of a right. (3) Every person has a right to the correction of information, or the deletion of untrue, erroneous or misleading information, which is held by the State or any institution or agency of the government at any level, and which relates to that person. (4) Legislation must be enacted to give effect to this right, but may restrict access to information in the interests of defence, public security or professional confidentiality, to the extent that the restriction is fair, reasonable, necessary and justifiable in a democratic society based on openness, justice, human dignity, equality and freedom. Subsidiary legislation that is clearly inconsistent with these provisions still exists. Notable among such laws is the Official Secrets Act 1970, which makes it difficult for citizens and media to access some information held by government and public institutions. Another law is the Public Order and Security Act 2002 (POSA), which restricts freedom of association and freedom of assembly. The law was recently invoked by government and used to prevent public gatherings. In the face of changing digital trends, questions remain about the relevance of the AIPPA legislation. In its pre-amble, the Act states that it will provide members of the public with the right to access to records and information held by public bodies. It further pledges to make public bodies accountable by allowing the public the right to request correction of misrepresented personal information. However, in effect the opposite is true, as the law takes away more than it gives. Under the AIPPA, applicants seeking records or information held by a public body should request the information in writing and, where possible, pay a reasonable fee. The head of the public body is given up to 30 days to respond. He/she is allowed to refuse the granting of the requested information if deemed to not be in the public’s interest. What is in the public’s interest has been left for the official to arbitrarily decide. If the information involves a third party, the head of the public institution is allowed 30 more days to consult the third party before responding to the request. However, the head of a public body may also refuse all or part of a request for access to information, in which case he/she has to give the applicant reasons for such refusal. In the event the applicant feels aggrieved by the decision not to grant information, he/she may ask the Zimbabwe Media Commission to review the public body’s decision. In essence, this constitutes a mere review process that does not guarantee the applicant access to information. In fact, it actually makes the process of accessing information more cumbersome and complex. The process is unnecessarily bureaucratised, as it may take more than 60 days before a final decision is made on whether an applicant can have access to a record or requested information. This is a typical scenario in which the AIPPA begins to act as an impediment to access to information rather than foster the spirit of openness and transparency within public bodies. The process contradicts the law’s intended principle of encouraging openness and accountability in public institutions. 103